It's that time again.
Main Entry: equiv·o·cate
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says
has several meanings:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
The equivocation comes from using evidence for 1-3 as evidence for 4-6. It also comes in the form of saying that there isn't any difference between artificial and natural selection even though natural selection could never produce the different breeds of dogs. However absent our hand natural selection could and would turn all dog breeds into populations of very similar mutts.
We observe anti-biotic resistance therefor natural selection did it. We observe different bacterial flagella therefor natural selection did it. We observe complex adaptations therefor natural selection did it.
AVIDA is an instantiation of evolution 1-3 therefor natural selection produced IC.
Evolutionary and genetic algorithms utilize goal-oriented targeted searches therefor natural selection did it, even though natural selection isn't goal oriented and could never find the target.
All. Bullshit. Equivocations. If it wasn't for equivocation evolutionists wouldn't have anything to say. And they equivocate because they are willfully ignorant of the fact that ID is NOT anti-evolution as ID argues solely against definition #6.
Right on que dumbass petrushka chimes in:
They were designed to do that. I have no idea why you think design and evolution are mutually exclusive.
They are not exclusive. In fact there is no possible evidence to disprove design. Every imaginable scenario is compatible with design.
The question is not whether design can be excluded; it is whether evolution is sufficient. AVIDA does not answer that, but it demonstrates that complex functionality can evolve.
1- We have said exactly what would falsify design. And no, not every imaginable scenario is compatible with design. Not all rocks are artifacts and not all deaths are murders. Grow up, dumbass.
2- Complex functionality evolved BY DESIGN, dumbass